Time’s up. They had their chance, now they have to take the stick for not doing the right thing. Hit-and-run tactics seem OK for these climate alarm propagandists, who so far have preferred to ignore the inconvenient truth.Update 1: the BBC has reacted, a day after the GWPF complaint piece and a week after the errors were reported in the US press.Update 2: the BBC has overwritten the original story with their new ‘concerns’ article, reports The GWPF. So they’ve buried the fake news.
– – –
Mainstream media is silent on errors in flawed climate scare story, says The GWPF.

Probably not, but this report loses some credibility and misleads readers when it claims: ‘But in 2014 the Nunavik became the first cargo ship to traverse the [Northwest] passage unescorted when it delivered nickel from the Canadian province of Quebec to China.’ It fails to mention the obviously important fact that Nunavik is an icebreaking bulk carrier.

Wikipedia says: ‘She is strengthened for navigation in ice according to the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) Polar Class 4, which allows year-round operation in thick first-year ice which may include old ice inclusions. Furthermore, she fulfills the requirements for ice class ICE-15 by Det Norske Veritas.’ So hardly the run-of-the-mill cargo ship that the BBC pretends it is.

Having tried to talk up the prospects of opening up this sea route, a note of caution is sounded: ‘However, some Arctic experts are not convinced that the Northwest Passage will ever be a busy commercial trade route.’ As well as unpredictable sea ice, unfavourable geography and disputed territorial claims are among the issues.

Climate change is increasingly opening up the Northwest Passage, an Arctic sea route north of the Canadian mainland, says the BBC.

Could it herald an era of more cargo shipping around the top of the world?

Meanwhile one of Jeremy Corbyn’s MPs, Laura Smith, the Labour MP for Crewe and Nantwich, has called for a general strike to help bring down the Conservative government – if there isn’t a general election.

She spoke at The World Transformed festival, which is running alongside the Labour Party conference in Liverpool.

‘Move along please, nothing to see here, science is settled’. Is that the BBC’s climate reporting policy? Does controversy have to be swept under the carpet, for fear of upsetting the ‘greenblob’? What happened to their charter duty of impartiality?

H/T The GWPF

In order to avoid giving ‘false balance’ to the climate alarmists at the BBC, I thought it would be a good idea to fact-check their new internal guidance on climate change, writes Harry Wilkinson.

This is their totalitarian memorandum aimed at stamping out free scientific discourse, on the basis that certain facts are established beyond dispute.

The problem is that these ones aren’t, and the BBC is guilty of repeatedly failing to describe accurately the nuances of climate science and the degree to which certain claims are disputed.

.
.
Climate alarmists are allowed to exaggerate or even be wrong on the facts, when they appear on the BBC. Climate sceptics on the other hand – not so much, on the rare occasions when they get past the BBC censors and into the studio.

As a long-time critic of climate alarmism, chemistry graduate Graham Stringer MP is not surprised by the latest cracks appearing in the facade of modern climate science, as the GWPF reports.

Al Gore, the U.S. politician and self-appointed champion of the green cause, famously declared that ‘the science is settled’ on climate change. It was a claim that revealed far more about the intolerance of the environmental movement than the reality of scientific inquiry.

Research should be founded on critical analysis of the evidence, not on wishful thinking or enforcement of a political ideology. Now the hollowness of Gore’s assertion is exposed again by a vital new report that shows how the apocalyptic predictions of the green lobby have been exaggerated.

In a study just published by the respected journal Nature Geoscience, a group of British academics reveals that the immediate threat from global warming is lower than previously thought, because the computer models used by climate change experts are flawed.

Bjorn Lomborg eviscerates a bad stats propaganda piece masquerading as a scientific ‘study’ in the Lancet. The FakeNews BBC uncritically regurgitates the story:

Based on a pathetically wrong study which is timed just right for great coverage.

The study specifically excludes any adaptation and assumes a laughably small number of cold deaths. Both dramatically push up damages and push down benefits.

Excluding adaptation leads to dramatic exaggeration of impacts. The study assumes that *no one* will make any adjustments over the next 83 years to accommodate higher temperatures, like cooler buildings, more greenery, more light surfaces and more air conditioning. Even the commentators on the paper are forced to point out that this is unrealistic: “People are known to adapt and become less vulnerable than previously to extreme weather conditions because of advances in medical technology, air conditioning, and thermal insulation in houses.”

On Sunday I gave a 10 minute presentation at a UKIP policy forum on climate and energy policy. This was well received and in the break-out group sessions during the afternoon, I found myself volunteered to chair the discussion and write-up our deliberations.

Forgive the wobbly video near the start. My cameraman decided to head round the other side of the room so I wasn’t blocking the view of the screen.

BBC News all but bursts a blood vessel over the EPA head’s opinion that the climate science ‘debate’ is not settled. Their reaction is to trot out some standard warmist platitudes, which surprises nobody.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Scott Pruitt has said he “would not agree” carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.

He told CNBC that measuring human impact on the climate was “very challenging” and there was “tremendous disagreement” about the issue.

Mr Pruitt instead insisted that officials needed “to continue the debate” on the issue. His remarks contradict his own agency’s findings on greenhouse gas emissions.(more…)

The BBC TV News was quick to claim this should encourage China to ‘move away’ from fossil fuels. They conveniently (for themselves) forgot to mention that gas is also classed as a fossil fuel but does not cause smog, so is a viable option which China will use. The BBC’s implication was that alternatives like renewables would save the day, but ironically the smog itself is only lingering due to lack of wind and is blocking out the sun.

NB the report below is from CBBC (children’s TV) and doesn’t include the ‘spin’.

Parts of China have been covered under a thick blanket of smog for the last four days.The air quality in China can sometimes be so bad, that the government have to give people warnings about the level of pollution in the air.

When the levels are high they can close schools, stop planes taking off, close factories and limit the number of cars on the road.In north and central China, cities like Beijing, are currently under a red alert air pollution warning – the highest level.(more…)

The simple fact is that if polar bear experts had been right about the threat to polar bears from the loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, there would be no polar bears in Churchill this fall. No bears for tourists to photograph, none for biologists to study, and certainly none for the BBC to film for an upcoming three-part TV special called “Arctic Live.”

The low-ice future that biologists said would doom polar bears to extinction by 2050 has already happened in 8 out of the last 10 years. The sea ice future has been realized.

Polar bears have experienced those supposedly deadly low-ice summers for almost a decade but the global population did not drop by 2/3 as predicted and not a single one of the ten subpopulations predicted to be extirpated under those conditions has been wiped out.

The BBC and Sky aren’t very interested in the ground campaign, probably because the Remainiacs don’t seem to have much of one. But Dutch TV presenter Eva Wiessing contacted me through twitter on Sunday (before Twitter locked me out of my account earlier today), and asked to come and film us in action.

I met the film crew on the ring road where we we knocking in some signs. Then they met up with me at the North Yorks County Show, where I ran a guerrilla operation for 90 minutes until told to pack up by the landowner.

Owen Paterson was supposed to be there, but I never saw him. Maybe he saw me first and knew I’d take him to task for nicking UKIP’s energy policy and then saying we didn’t have any ideas.

A major new and serious complaint has been sent to the Director General of the BBC, regarding the Corporation’s persistent bias in reporting of climate change issues. The complaint is a massive 163 pages long, and is a joint submission from ten complainants. In addition, there are several technical annexes, totalling 125 pages.

Complaint of BBC prejudice in covering of climate change and warning of potential judicial review

We enclose a complaint from all of us about persistent partiality in the BBC’s coverage of climate change. From the outset, on the climate question the BBC has tended to reflect only one view – that of the climate science establishment who are promoting a view that man is causing significant global…

The FUD campaign by Cameron and the Remainians continues. By getting big cheeses from the international stage to talk down Britain’s prospects outside the EU, they hope to undermine the British people’s confidence in their own ability to succeed in the wider world.

The mainstream media operates a complimentary tactic. Ignore or belittle the efforts of ‘the little people’ to make a positive difference to the ‘public’ debate. Downplay their popular movements, disparage their spokesmen and women. Deny them the oxygen of publicity. We’ve seen it all before in the climate wars. Now we’re getting the same thing again in spades with the EU referendum.

Between them, the establishment politicians and the mainstream media are trying to make us believe we can’t succeed with a brexit plan they and their paymasters disapprove of as being against their lobbying interests. They don’t believe in Britain any more, but they do believe in protecting their own financial interests.

When it comes to forming opinions and making judgments on hot political issues, partisans of both parties don’t let facts get in the way of their decision-making, according to a new Emory University study. The research sheds light on why staunch Democrats and Republicans can hear the same information, but walk away with opposite conclusions.

Lord Andrew Adonis broke cover on BBC radio 4 this morning to tell us about the new National Infrastructure Commission’s plans for making our country vulnerable to massive power cuts. This will be achieved by making the UK dependent on undersea electrical extension leads plugged into Iceland, Denmark and other EU countries wind power systems, continuing to shut down our traditional power generation capacity and the installation of smart meters which talk to new white-goods everyone will have to buy. A lot of the plan is predicated on ‘demand reduction’ and ‘storage’ (although details of that were not forthcoming).

Brexit: The Movie, is a new project set up by Martin Durkin, of ‘The great Global Warming Swindle’ fame. Martin is a top documentary maker, but none of the big TV channels are going to finance this one. Check out the trailer above and you’ll know why.

Climate sceptics have a lot of reasons to be eurosceptics too, given the nutty energy policy being dictated to the UK from Brussels thanks to their mad climate policies.

The idea of lending the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) conjecture an air of scientific legitimacy by defining the period since the spread of agrarianism and industrialisation as a new geological age called the ‘Anthropocene’ has been bubbling along in the background for a number of years. In fact, it’s now got it’s own grand ‘working group’ consisting of the members listed below. This list was drawn to my attention by Matt McGrath of the BBC climate-propaganda unit, the de-facto promoter of the outfit.

I don’t know how many of these people are serious working geologists, but the names Naomi Oreskes and Andy Revkin jumped out at me, and put me in mind of that other list of 28 ‘world leading climate experts’ who the BBC used as an excuse to no-platform anyone critical of their alarmist climate-schtick back in 2005. A scandal that became known as 28gate, when the 28 ‘experts’ turned out to be activists from greenpeace, WWF, Stop Climate Chaos etc.

In an almost unbelievable display of ignorance or deliberate deception, the BBC on one of its climate alarm pages, links loss of Arctic sea ice to sea level rise. Do they really not understand that floating ice doesn’t change sea level when it melts? Archimedes principle has been around for a couple of thousand years, but it seems the science illiterates at the BBC skipped this class in school.